If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I thought the issue was with the GPL license, not the LGPL. I can't really think of any reason those companies would be LGPL incompatible, all it requires is that you publish any changes you make within the library, anything outside can be as proprietary as you want.

LGPL requires that your proprietary code also be supplied in such a format that the user can re-link it with a rebuilt/modified version of the library. Dynamic linking mostly takes care of this on typical desktop operating systems, but on consoles the norm is to ship only an encrypted and/or signed executable with any third-party library code statically linked.

GPL can be a problem in app store apps (but it makes little sense for free apps, like VLC where some people are kicking up a stink over nothing)...

Sure it makes sense -- Free Software isn't about price, it's about freedom. If you distribute a GPL app, regardless of the price or the venue, you must also provide access to the full, corresponding source code.

Almost as importantly, one cannot legally distribute a GPL application in binary form and then restrict the end-user's ability to re-create such a binary from the source code. This is exactly the issue with software in the app store -- due to Apple's restrictions, one cannot compile the source code for VLC and install a customized (or not) binary of VLC on the iPhone without first agreeing to Apple's restrictive licensing.

This is a GPL violation, and is no small issue, regardless of how much the software in question sells for.

In regards to Wayland switching to LGPL, while dual licensing under MIT and LGPL might make the project used it more locations, it would be less Free, as it would undoubtedly end up being used in proprietary software.

LGPL requires that your proprietary code also be supplied in such a format that the user can re-link it with a rebuilt/modified version of the library. Dynamic linking mostly takes care of this on typical desktop operating systems, but on consoles the norm is to ship only an encrypted and/or signed executable with any third-party library code statically linked.

Ah, ok. Still, i don't really see Microsoft or Apple allowing an application to run a window manager on their hardware platforms anyway, so i really don't see this making any kind of difference in the real world.